Not being a matter of public policy, the

Practical application:

The Court of Cassation's decision confirms that co-ownership rules can override the general right to enclose one's property under Article 647 of the Civil Code, as this is not a matter of public policy. Sophie must therefore respect the regulation and cannot install the fence. She should first verify the exact wording of the co-ownership rules, and if she wishes to challenge them, seek legal advice on the possibility of obtaining an amendment at the next general meeting.

Practical application:

The decision confirms that the co-ownership regulation's prohibition is legally enforceable even against owners, so Marc cannot allow the enclosure without breaching the rules. He must refuse the tenants' request and explain that the regulation overrides the general right to enclose. To avoid disputes, he should include a clause in future leases clearly stating that any enclosure is prohibited under the co-ownership rules, and consider checking whether the co-ownership might be open to a vote on amending the regulation.

Practical application:

Relying on this case law, the co-ownership syndicate can take legal action to compel removal of the fence, as the prohibition in the regulation is valid and enforceable. The first step is to send a formal notice (mise en demeure) to the offending owner, citing the regulation and the court decision. If the fence is not removed within a set deadline (e.g., 30 days), the syndicate may seek a court injunction. Affected owners should also raise the issue at the next general meeting to confirm the will to enforce the rule.